For as long as I can remember, I have been a fan of mysteries. As a child, it started with Scooby-Doo and watching Murder, She Wrote with my Mom (much to my Father's dismay). By the time I was 13, I had read over half of Agatha Christie's library, devoured every detective show I could, and, along with some of my neighborhood friends, even went out trying to find crimes I could solve myself. There's just nothing like a good mystery novel.
So, one day, while I was killing time at work, I decided to quiz Chat GPT about its knowledge of the classic mystery. Not only did it, but it had a few surprising things to say along the way. Although, if you know AI at all, you know nothing it says or does is really surprising. Regardless, I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did!
How old are you GPT?
As an AI language model, I don’t have an age in the traditional sense. I was “born” in 2020 when I was developed by OpenAI, and I have been continuously learning and improving since then.
What is your earliest memory?
As an AI language model, I don’t have memories like humans do. My “memories” are based solely on the data I was trained on and the information I have access to.
What was the first piece of data you had access to?
As an AI language model, my first access to data was the text corpus used to train me. This text corpus contains vast amounts of written language from various sources, including books, websites, and other documents. It is from this corpus that I learned language patterns and gained my initial understanding of human language.
Could you name some of the books in the text corpus used to train you?
Yes, here are some of the books included in the training corpus used to create my model:
“The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” by Arthur Conan Doyle
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen
“War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy
“Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll
“1984” by George Orwell
“The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger
“To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald
“The Odyssey” by Homer
“The Bible” (King James Version)
“The Complete Works of William Shakespeare”
These are just a few examples of the many books used to train my model.
Ah, those are some excellent reads. How accurate is 1984 to what happens in real life! Orwell was pretty good at predicting things.
Orwell’s “1984” is a classic dystopian novel that has been lauded for its accurate depiction of certain aspects of totalitarianism and surveillance. While some aspects of the novel may be exaggerated or dramatized for literary effect, many of the themes and warnings it presents are still relevant today. It’s certainly true that some of the technologies and techniques described in the book, such as surveillance cameras and the manipulation of language and history, have become realities in our modern world. However, it’s important to remember that the novel is a work of fiction, and should be read as such.
Absolutely, it’s a cautionary tale, not reality. But a cautionary tale with a similar reality to our own nonetheless.
Was there any Agatha Christie in the text corpus used to train you?
Yes, Agatha Christie’s works are included in the text corpus used to train me. Some of her most popular books, such as “Murder on the Orient Express”, “Death on the Nile”, and “And Then There Were None”, are often included in datasets used for natural language processing tasks.
Doyle and Christie both had a very different way of telling a story and setting up a mystery. Could you compare the two for me?
Yes, I can compare the writing styles of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie. Both authors are well known for their mystery novels, but they had distinct differences in their storytelling techniques.
Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories often focus on Holmes’ ability to observe and deduce clues from seemingly insignificant details. Doyle often relies on Holmes’ intelligence and deductive reasoning to solve the case, and the story is told from the perspective of Holmes’ sidekick, Dr. John Watson. Doyle also used a lot of technical jargon and detailed descriptions to make the stories more engaging.
On the other hand, Christie’s stories often focus on the human psyche and the motives behind the crime. Her characters are complex and often have multiple motives for committing the crime. Christie also liked to include red herrings and plot twists in her stories to keep the reader guessing until the end. Unlike Doyle, Christie often changes the perspective of the story to give the reader different viewpoints and create a more dynamic narrative.
Overall, while both authors wrote mystery novels, they had different approaches to storytelling. Doyle focused on the intellectual prowess of his characters, while Christie was more interested in exploring the darker side of human nature.
If you were a police chief and you could only afford to hire Poirot or Holmes, who would you hire?
As an AI language model, I do not have personal preferences or the ability to make hiring decisions. However, I can provide some context on the strengths and weaknesses of Poirot and Holmes.
Poirot is known for his attention to detail and his methodical approach to solving crimes. He often relies on his “little grey cells” and his deep understanding of human nature to solve cases. He is also known for his impeccable sense of style and his fastidious nature.
On the other hand, Holmes is known for his incredible deductive reasoning skills and his ability to see patterns and connections where others cannot. He is often portrayed as a bit of a loner and a bit eccentric, but his methods are highly effective.
In terms of hiring for a police chief, it would depend on the specific needs of the department and the types of crimes they are dealing with. Both Poirot and Holmes have their strengths, and both could be highly effective in certain situations. Ultimately, the decision would come down to the specifics of the job and the preferences of the hiring officials.
The Los Angeles Police Department, 1993. They need a homicide detective to solve cases as quickly as possible. They can choose Holmes or Poirot. Which one, in your estimation based upon the literary works featuring their crime solving abilities, will solve more murders faster?
In terms of solving cases quickly, Holmes may have the advantage due to his focus on deduction and logic, as well as his ability to quickly identify and eliminate false leads. He is also known for his attention to detail and his ability to make connections between seemingly disparate pieces of evidence. However, Poirot’s approach involves understanding human nature and psychology, which can help him quickly identify motives and suspects. Additionally, Poirot’s use of interviews and personal connections can help him quickly narrow down the list of potential suspects. Ultimately, it may depend on the specifics of each case and the type of crime being investigated.
Who would have investigated the OJ Simpson crime more effectively?
It’s impossible to say for certain who would have investigated the OJ Simpson case more effectively, as it is a real-world case with many complex factors that would have been different from the fictional cases solved by Poirot and Holmes. However, if we were to speculate based on their fictional crime-solving abilities, Holmes might have been more effective in investigating the OJ Simpson case, given his expertise in forensic science and his ability to think outside the box to solve complex mysteries. That being said, real-world investigations are much more complicated than fictional ones, and there are many factors that would have influenced the outcome of the OJ Simpson case.
Yea, Poirot probably couldn’t have broken OJ in the interrogation room. You’re probably right about Holmes being the guy for the case. When it comes to famous fictional detectives, are there any you can think of who would probably be much less successful in real life, given their specific talents?
Yes, there are definitely some fictional detectives who, while they may be entertaining to read about, would likely be less successful in real life. One example that comes to mind is Nero Wolfe, the eccentric detective created by Rex Stout. Wolfe is known for his brilliance and deductive skills, but he is also a recluse who rarely leaves his home, relying instead on his assistant, Archie Goodwin, to do most of the legwork in his investigations. In real life, a detective who never left their office or interacted with witnesses or suspects in person would likely struggle to solve cases effectively.
True. Even Matlock rarely sent his P.I. to do legwork.
Yes, that’s a good point. Matlock was a defense attorney, not a detective, so he relied more on legal strategy and courtroom tactics rather than investigative work. His private investigator, Tyler Hudson, did assist in gathering evidence, but the show didn’t focus as much on the details of the investigation as it did on the trial itself. In real life, a successful defense attorney would need to have a solid understanding of the facts of the case and the evidence in order to build an effective defense, so relying solely on a private investigator would not be enough.
Didn’t he have a few P.I. characters over the years?
No, Matlock did not have any private investigator characters over the years. In the TV series “Matlock,” he was the only main character who solved cases, although he did often work with a team of associates and experts to help him in his investigations.
No, I mean, weren’t there multiple reoccurring characters who played a P.I. role to Matlock’s lawyer? As actors would leave, new characters would be created for new actors, no?
Ah, I see what you’re asking now. Yes, you’re correct that over the course of the series, Matlock had several different private investigators who worked with him on various cases. Some of the most notable ones included Tyler Hudson (played by Kene Holliday), Conrad McMasters (played by Clarence Gilyard Jr.), and Jerri Stone (played by Nancy Stafford). These characters all brought their own unique talents and personalities to the show, and helped Matlock to crack some tough cases over the years.
Even still, Matlock often did his own legwork and investigations, to keep the show interesting and all.
Yes, that’s true. Matlock was often seen conducting his own investigations and gathering evidence, which was a departure from the typical lawyer-drama format where the attorneys are primarily focused on legal proceedings. This helped make Matlock stand out and remain popular among viewers.